Is the Roman Catholic Church the "mother church?"

Obviously this has upset you Marcia, but I think you are upset with what you are reading into the statement, rather than what was said, which I believe is factual. That doesn't mean the RCC is the "one true, original, instituted by Jesus, mother of all, church".

Truly, what does it matter what Brownback says about this. He is entitled to his view, as are you and I. Just another example of why government and religion should be separate.

 

And his words are completely expected of a Catholic. Ask any catholic and they would say the same thing. If they didn't, they wouldn't be catholic.

 

There is no such thing as a 'mother church' in the church of Jesus Christ. From a Christian view, I would say the term and the idea it points to are category mistakes.

Perhaps a 'mother church' case could be made from a religious or Catholic sense, but if so Jesus Christ is not the Lord of it, just as He isn't the Lord of the RCC.

The concept of a mother church indicates an original church that somehow birthed or created an 'offspring' church, which may well be true of some 'religious' churches. Perhaps the term is used to refer to a true Christian church that has planted other churches, I don't know. If so, it is an extremely poor choice of terminology. Of course, the Creator and Architect of the church of Jesus Christ is Jesus Christ, and to my knowledge He is never referred to as a 'mother' of anything.

 

With all the things going on in the world to get upset about, Marcia, with all due respect, I don't see this as one of them.

 

How can this be true in any sense of the word "mother" ?

The institution which is guilty of an ocean of blood, murder and mayhem of the most horrible kind, burning people to death, garroting them, etc, etc, under a reign of terror for 1000 years under the banner of "The Holy Roman Empire"?

John 13

34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.​

Matthew 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
​

HankD

 

Marcia, Marcia, Marcia! Why is it always about Marcia? - Jan Brady

Seriously, Marcia, you can be upset all you want. I am not telling you not to, nor would I presume to tell you anything you should or should not do. I am saying it is counterproductive and with all the serious problems facing the world, worrying about what some government official says about the Catholic Church. Whatever his opinion is, he too is entitled to it, and it makes not a whit of difference one way or the other. You have carried on about this through two or three threads. It is obvious it bothers you deeply, and I don't negate that. But in the scheme of things, this won't be remembered by anyone in a week, while our soldiers continue to die in a pointless war, cancer continues to steal people's lives, children go to bed hungry even here in the USA, and on and on. Brownback's opinion doesn't change one thing.

Where I believe you are reading into his words more than he intended is the previously mentioned use of the word orthodox. I already answered that.

God bless,
MP

 

Marcia, obviously you want to be upset. My post was certainly not intended to be patronizing. May I offer you a chill pill? You obviously need one. Not only do you read too much into Brownback's comments, but way way too much into mine.

 

I don't believe that the RCC is the mother church at all!!!! I do have a question though....Could someone tell me why some of the worst atrosities of the holocaust were executed by roman catholics that were over the concentration camps and they were never ex-communicated from the roman catholic church???? Just something to ponder....

 

There's not going to be anything said on this forum which puts the Catholic church is a favorable light that Baptists are going to agree with.

To the best of my knowledge all non-Catholic Christian religions splintered off from the Catholic Church.

Prior to the Reformation, what Christian religions existed? Catholic and .....????

BTW, if Brownback is going to appear on EWTN's Coming Home, he is Catholic. There are evangelical Cathlics.

 

Why does everyone say we splintered off the Catholic when the split the Catholic went one way and the Eastern Orthodox Church went the other so the Mother Church was before either one. If you want to bring the Mother Church forward then why do you have to go the way of the Catholic, why not go the way of the Eastern Orthodox Chuch instead and on up until today. But for sure there was the seven churches of Asia long before Catholism and during the rule of Rome there were the Christians in Rome but not the Catholics. It wasn't until 1054 I think the Catholics came into veiw and the Eastern Orthodox Church and the split came because of doctrine mostly the "pope". The Eastern didn't want to go back to the doctrine of the Law Covenant where there would be a High Priest again for Jesus is our High Preist, so they wouldn't accept the "pope".

 

Marcia, I understood all along why you were alarmed and concerned about the report and wasn't surprised at all, knowing your passion for Truth and your hatred of error. And, as usual, you did not miss the significance of the thing. I was not aware of this latest evangelical flirtation with the RCC and the Catholic mystics but I've been expecting an escalation of it for some time, so thanks for posting it.

What's happening is God has begun separating the wheat from the tares as the global apostate church begins to form and take shape. Except for the remnant that remains true to God and His Word, worldwide professing Christianity is on the fast track of becoming a melting pot as doctrine is cast away, differences are discarded, and unity is cherished. It's been how long now since the signing of ECT (Evangelicals and Catholics Together), 15 years maybe?

The hard-core mechanisms needed to expedite the formation of this global church organization are now in place and working, having been tested with tremendous success. For instance, it appears that movements such as the Emergent Church, the Dominionist movement, the Seeker, New Apostolic Reformation, and Purpose-Driven movements, on the whole, are players for sure. Week after week, the distinctions of these movements become more cloudy and they become more difficult to define. At this point, it appears that the whole thing (the emerging global church) will exist under a modified New Age, 'Christian' umbrella. New Age is the one common denominator in all the areas I've studied. It's a longer jump for some than others, a longer jump for Purpose-Driven protestants than Emergent Church protestants, for example, but everything required is already there, in place right now. To my knowledge no protestant denominations are officially involved but I have hard information, for example, that there are denominational leaders who are flirting with emergent leaders, and their ideas and theology, behind the scenes.

I realize the straightforward character of the information in the above paragraphs (that you may not agree with) but I said all that to say this: You were not in any sense overreacting. Your discernment and love for truth stands you well, IMHO, and your sensitivity is something to be emulated, since a calculated effort of desensitivity to Biblical Truth is already widespread and an effective part of the enemy's plan.

 

The only trouble with the Eastern Orthordox is they hold to tradition above the text when the Prodestant are the other way around and hold to the Bible as their only way of Scripture and from it come our traditions. The main thing is the true church or "mother church" did not believe in a "pope" nor does it today.

 

I'm probably going to get a lot grief for saying this, but when I read accounts of the early church, and especially what the church taught and what a typical service was like, I does not seem to me that it had much in common with what we see in most American evangelical churches on Sunday morning. For one, the churches of that era had a liturgy and the service itself was divided into what some Christians would call Word and Sacrament. For instance, reading the Apology of Justin Martyr , which was written in the early second century, it is clear that the first part of the service was open to the public and was dedicated to prayer and the reading and preaching of the Word. The second part of the service was only for baptized believers and it involved partaking in the Lord's Supper.

Having said this, I also need to make it clear that when I read these accounts neither do I see what amounts to a Catholic mass. What Justin Martyr describes is more akin to what we might see today in a Lutheran church.

 

Mother Church?

Seeing that the Catholic Church started approx 300 years after the resurrectionof Christ, it is impossible for it to be the Mother Church. Jesus is the Head of the Church, not a Pontiff who speaks Ex-Cathedra.
It only takes a careful reading of the Book of Acts and the life of Jesus and the disciples to see when the Church was oraganized and empowered. There is no invisible, universal church, they are each local, visible, assemblies.
Baptists should be moved by the Senators comment, but what do you expect from a lost man. If th Catholic Church is the Mother Church, it is the Mother of Harlots. By the way, Baptists did not come out of the Reformation. They were there way before, it takes a little study of groups like the Albigensenes, Waldensens, and Ana-Baptists to see the history of Baptists and their Doctrine, by the way, which has never changed.

 

I can see where the Catholic and others could say this but just as equal so could those of the Eastern Orthodox Church. That is not all for there were those who were never a part of the movement of the Catholic and Orthodox but would not accept the pope and were off to themselves. The true "mother" church has to be the "saved" that were among whosoever but were silent until a coming out in the "reformation" movement. The reformation didn't just one day say it is time to reform but was happening probably since the early church in 1st BC when there were 3 divisions then and from pressure from the State kept silent. I can see the same thing today for Churches are moving to a more modern way and even leaving the name "Baptist" just to increase their membership but among them all, there are the silent which do not accept the "new ways" and if time last there will be another "coming out" of the true church. What is called the church of today has more wordly things in it than the world itself and are more concerned about being like the world than serving God. "Money" is the big drawing power of it all and to get the money they need the membership so the first thing to suffer is the Gospel. I see the true "Mother Church" being as the woman who took the wings of an eagle and flew into the wilderness to a place prepared of God. He said I will never leave you and I think He brought "her" through all the State rule, Catholism, Eastern Orthodox as a remnant that did not bow to the ways of man but were the truly saved to a time where she was to take her place again. The true "Mother Church" can be traced all the way back to Christ and the Apostles and through the rule of Rome to the fall of Rome and through the Reformation into the present time. raying: